The
SPEAKER announced that he had presented to the Governor-General the address of
the House in reference to the Native Police, to which His excellency had
returned an answer intimating that the new estimate would be submitted to the
House."

Parliamentary
Votes and Proceedings; killing blacks

28
Feb 1857

"KILLING
BLACKS

Mr.
RUSDEN moved, 'That an address be presented to the Governor-General, praying
that His excellency will cause to be laid upon the table of this House a return
of all correspondence that may have taken place between the Government and any
other parties relative to the suspension of a sergeant, and the 'killing of a
lot of station blacks by native troopers', as stated in the evidence of R.P.
Marshall, Esq., taken before the Select committee on the native police. He
supported his motion by reading one or two extracts in the report on the native
police to the effect above hinted at.

Mr.
PARKER assented to the motion, which was put and passed, remarking however that
he had not been able to find any correspondence in his office, or that of the
Attorney-General, to the

.... ) (incomplete)

Note:find reports referred to.

27
March 1857

Blankets for Aborigines

Legislative Assembly Votes and Proceedings; Native Police
Force

May
2nd 1857

NATIVE
POLICE FORCE

Mr.
SANDEMAN moved, ‘1. That the report from the Select Committee on the Native
Police Force, which was laid on the table of this House on the 28th
ultimo, be now adopted. 2. That an address be presented to the Governor General
transmitting a copy of the report, and praying that His Excellency will be
pleased to take the necessary measures to carry the recommendations of the
report into effect.’ In bringing forward the resolution he did not think it
necessary to go into length into the subject. The report went very fully into
the matter, and the evidence fully bore out the recommendations of the report.
The force having been reduced had been the cause of considerable evil by loss of
life and destruction of property, some years ago. It consisted of 140 men, but
has been reduced to 72. In the outlying districts loss of life and destruction
of property was greatly decreased after the establishment of the native police
force, and it has increased since it has been abandoned.

Mr.
HARGRAVE: After fully considering the very able report brought up by the
committee on this subject, and with the main recommendations of which he fully
agreed, thought it was his duty to undertake the somewhat ungracious task of
moving an amendment upon it – by omitting the estimates altogether for the
Clarence and Macleay, and for reasons which he would endeavour very shortly to
explain. Unfortunately for him his experience on the lower McIntyre, at
Cullandoon, many years since, convinced him of the necessity for such a corps,
as being of great value, not only as regards the amount of property and stock
saved , but also in preventing the destruction of human life. He had no wish to
lessen the efficiency of this corps; but he also learned that soon after a
district ceased to be a frontier one, and after it had been patrolled for some
time by this corps, its presence ceases to be necessary; and such he believed to
be the case with the Clarence and Macleay. There were doubtless depredations
committed by the blacks in these districts, still they were not of a serious
nature; but, he believed that the principle value of this force was, that they
should (if he might use the expression) march parallel with the squatters as
they occupied new territory, and not be detained so far inside the settled
districts, where they were too frequently found hanging about the townships,
which was one great cause of the efficiency of the corps, but should be sent
elsewhere to districts where their services were of more value, and their
presence much more required. He had also another objection to retaining this
force, caused by the system of control under which they are to be placed – an
improvement certainly upon the plan by which they were placed under the control
of the Inspector General of Police in Sydney, but by no means applicable to any
control which they would have over the force proposed for the Clarence and
Macleay. From his own knowledge he could state had been far too much attached to
their barracks, and the township of Grafton; indeed, correspondence now in the
possession of the Government would bear out his assertions in this respect; and
that after months of complaint, , at length a portion of the corps moved to
another part of the district. Therefore, if there had been such difficulty in
obtaining a proper attention to their duties, when the department was so easy of
approach, and when the officer knew they were so near to control, what prospect
of their duty being done would there be if they had to appeal to a commandant at
some distance from Moreton Bay? Believing, therefore, that the system of
management, which he approved of as applicable to the force generally, and the
locality in which they were wanted, would be peculiarly inapplicable to those
districts; and that their services would be of much more value on the frontiers;
he should move as an amendment – that this portion of the report be not
adopted; not from any desire to lessen the corps, or its efficiency, but to
transfer the services of this detachment to the frontiers, where their services
were far more necessary; and in the hope that they would do their duty better
there, than they had hitherto performed the very little they were asked to do in
the locality where they now were. He moved that the words ‘except that portion
thereof which relates to the employment of this corps in the Clarence River and
Macleay Districts, which corps it is the opinion of this House ought to be
employed elsewhere.’

Mr.
ROBERTSON seconded the amendment.

Mr.
PARKER thought the House was indebted to the hon. Member for taking so much
pains on the subject. Though some difference of opinion existed as to the
numbers of the native police force, all agreed with the conclusions which had
been arrived at. (Hear, hear.) All agreed the force was a valuable one,
and better calculated than any other to effect the object for which it was
intended. The hon. Member who had moved the amendment doubtless did it with a
view to improving the service. He (Mr. Parker) agreed with those who thought
that the force ought to be of a frontier character, although he was not
prepared to say when the force should be excluded from the Clarence and Macleay
districts. For his own part, he was inclined to think that the police force
would be strong enough with the reduction. With regard to another proposition,
he thought that the appointment of a commandant would be a great improvement. He
thought that with a commandant, and with the control of the Government Resident
at Moreton Bay, the efficiency of the force would be greatly improved. He found
that the report did not say at what rate the commandant should be paid. He hoped
hon. Members would give the Government some suggestions as to the proper
remuneration for the gentleman who might hold the office of commandant. He had
asked the police authorities in Sydney for a statement as to the probable extra
expense. The salary of the commandant was set down at 500 pounds per annum. He
thought that was not sufficient, he was inclined to think the salary ought to be
between 500 pounds and 750 pounds; perhaps the latter sum would be the more
proper, the secretary was set down as 250 pounds; that perhaps might do. The
total increase of expense he found to be 6,971 pounds – that is, the expense
was rather more than doubled for the Northern District. Then it was
proposed in the report to discontinue the police in one section of the Southern
district. This would effect a reduction of 1,500 pounds, so that the total
increase of expenditure would be 5,500 pounds if this scheme were carried into
effect. It should be borne in mind, in dealing with this question, that there
was a likelihood of the district of Moreton Bay being separated from the
southern part of the colony. (Hear, hear.) Now, if the separation took place,
this colony, it was seen, would be subject to the expense of maintaining on
account of that district one hundred men or more. He thought, however, it was
desirable that that the report should be carried into effect. The black troopers
were undeniably better men to run down offenders of their own body than any
others. Another thing to consider was the difficulty of finding a proper man for
the office of commandant. As for the late commander, Mr. Walker, there can be no
doubt but that gentleman possessed peculiar qualifications for the office, and
that those qualifications were for a considerable time taken as a set-off
against his irregularities. As to think of putting a military man, or a
strait-laced Government official, at the head of the force, it was out of the
question. (Hear, hear.) From what he (Mr. Parker) heard, the commandant of the
native police force must be a man who is not afraid of the saddle – must, in
fact, be a thorough bushman. He trusted that, in dealing with this matter, they
would receive the assistance of the country gentlemen in the House. (Hear,
hear.) He repeated that he thought the hon. Gentleman who brought the question
forward was entitled to thanks for taking so active a part in the matter.

Mr.
DALLEY said he was resolved to give the honorable gentleman who moved the
resolution s all the assistance in his power, in carrying out the report. He
could not agree with the amendment, by which it was proposed to draw the native
police from the Macleay and Clarence districts. He could not agree with
this proposal, because, looking at the evidence, he perceived that the blacks in
those districts were men of the most violent character, and had committed
various offences which would never have been punished were it not for the native
police force. If they referred to the activities of Mr. Bligh, they would
find that they would not be justified in withdrawing the force from the
Clarence, and the entire evidence went to show the expediency of maintaining the
force in the Macleay district. As to the expense, he thought that if it were
shown that the native police were necessary for the security of life and
property, they were bound not to take into consideration the cost incurred on
account of the force.

Mr.
G. MACLEAY fully agreed with those who thought the native police force ought to
be a frontier corps, and therefore he should vote for the amendment. The
offences committed by the blacks in the Clarence and the Macleay were not, he
would point out, of the same description as those committed on the frontier. In
the former instance, the offences were generally committed by solitary blacks,
who might be brought to justice by a single constable; while in the latter
instance, whole tribes were accustomed to come down and carry off the stock of
the settlers. Thus it was necessary to act with lage bodies of police on the
frontier, while in the interior districts detached policemen would answer all
purposes. Although lately so many outrages had not been committed in the
southern districts as formerly, he believed that it was necessary to have a
force in the south also, to prevent such outrages as those which had formerly
taken place.

Mr. T.G. RUSDEN pointed out the
inconvenience of going into a question which honorable members had not had
sufficient time to consider (Hear, hear.) He had read the evidence, but he had
not had sufficient time to tie to give it due consideration. The report might be
a good one, but he would point out that some persons objected on principle to
blacks being employed to hunt down blacks; and he would call to mind that,
during last session, it was asserted that blacks had been employed to hunt down
whites. As to the districts of the Clarence and Macleay, he believed there were
no places where the police force was more wanted. This he had heard from a
magistrate who was acquainted with the districts. It was within his (Mr.
Rusden’s knowledge of the blacks in those two districts, that they had
kidnapped away a white boy and girl, who could not be recovered for want of an
efficient police force. Under all circumstances, he suggested that the debate
should be adjourned till honorable members had had time to read the evidence.
For himself, he did not believe that it was either proper or Christian to employ
blacks to hunt their fellow-creatures to death; and he doubted whether the
proposed protection was required. He suggested to the honorable mover to adjourn the debate for
a week.

Mr.
RICHARDSON supported the motion. He said that, no doubt, the native police were
an expensive corps, but when life and property were at stake expense was not to
be (?obscure) As to the time afforded for consideration of the report, he

would
point out that, although the report was new, the object wasnot. The subject of the native
was discussed police was discussed last session, and during several previous sessions.
He (Mr. Richardson) was in England, when the native police force was reduced,
and when he returned to the colony nothing surprised him more than the reduction
which had taken place. Some hon. members would recollect that certain returns
which he had asked for and obtained before the reduction of the force, showed
the number of murders committed by the blacks to be enormous; and since the
force had been reduced the number of murders and outrages had increased.He knew of his own knowledge that it was customary with the blacks of the
Northern districts to say after the reduction of the force, that the native
police were now "nyrang"—that is that they were weakened, that they
were inefficient; and since that period the blacks had been known to attack
settlers within a short distance of Brisbane. As to the late commandant, Mr.
Walker, he would re mark that at first that officer was efficient; but the
inefficiency of the commandant was no reason for disbanding the force.

Mr. MARKS said
that if the cost were to be paid by those who enjoyed the protection, they would
do very well to adopt the motion; but if the charge were to be levied on the
public at large, the House, he thought, would do well to pause before they
assented to the proposal.

Mr. F. T. RUSDEN
said, in reference to the assumed separation of Moreton Bay, that whether that
event took place or not, the lives and properties of the settlers must be
protected. When separation took place, if that event should come about, he felt
assured that the Moreton Bay people would not hesitate to pay the expense
incurred, seeing that the money had been expended exclusively on their account.
(Hear, hear.) The committee had examined Mr.Bligh from the Clarence, than whom a
more efficient officer could not be found; and that gentleman told them that a
particular reason for continuing the force in the Clarence was that the scrub
was so dense in that district as to render it impossible for the ordinary police
force to track the offending blacks to their haunts. As to Moreton Bay, he would
mention that he had been told that the blacks had been accustomed to attack and
rob drays within thirty miles of Brisbane. (Hear, hear.) There could be no doubt
but that the native police ought to be a pioneer corps ; and as years advanced,
doubtless, those forces which were stationed in the Clarence and the Macleay
might be dispensed with, and it was with the view to having forces drawn from
localities where they were not required, and placed in positions where their
services were in requisi­tion, that it was proposed to place the corps under
the charge of a commandant. In the Northern District the larger force was
required for this reason, that as there were larger tracts of unlocated country
there, the frontier was necessarily larger. As to the remark that no schedule
was appended to the report, the committee refrained from fixing salaries or
general amounts because they believed that that was a matter purely Executive.
For himself, he was not prepared to give a high salary, believing that, in this
as in other matters, they ought to study economy. In his opinion £500 a year
was sufficient for the commandant. In conclusion, he hoped the House would adopt
the re port, or, at all events, only postpone its adoption to a future occasion.

Mr FORSTER said
he rose principally for the purpose of addressing himself to the amendment pro­posedby
thehon.member for New England. He thought the hon. member who moved and the hon.
member who supported the amendment, had shown their ignorance of the country on
which the amendment was founded. The arguments of the honorable member for New
England also proved that he was unacquainted with the evidenceon which the report was founded. The native police force was found to be
necessary in frontier districts, but there must be great difficulty in knowing
where the frontier ceases. That wasthecase — especially in the country of the Clarence, since it possessed
the character of a frontier and settled district. He took it for granted that
the hon. member had notread the report or considered the number of rapes and serious
offences which it was stated in the evidence had been committed, or he never
would have said that he considered the native police force were unnecessary in
the Clarence. It was a singular fact that a great num­ber of rapes had been
committed, more even than had been mentioned in the report. The country of the
northern districts was socut up by
scrub that the settlers were in a manner isolated from oneanother, and it was impossible for them torender each other assistance. This became more the marked character of
the country as they advanced further north, and therefore rendered it necessary
that this force should notbe
removed suddenly. He confessed he was of opinion that the blacks were civilised,
buthe had come to the conclusion
after having heard theevidence,
and from his know­ledge after eight years residence there, that the blacks were
not civilised, and that they continued to meet in numbers; consequently it would
not be safeto with­draw the
force. If the hon. member for Murrurnbidgee had read the evidence ofCommissioner Bligh, he would have found inreference to the outrages, that they were committed by the
blacks in passing through the country in large numbers. He thought it was
therefore distinctly proved thattheblacks were not in the quiet state the hon member supposed themto be. The hon. member had talked of catching one or twoblacks andpunishing them;but he contended that it was almost im­possible to catch wild blacks
unless some strata­gem was put in force. He knew that within 200 yards of where
the quarter sessionswere heldthere was a scrub in which 50 blacks might be concealed, and he defied
any police toputthem out without the assist­ance of blacks. He thoughthehad said enough to show
that the proposal of withdrawing the force would be an act of great injustice tothe settlers. With re­gard to the general character of thenative police, he had little to say. He thought those speakers who had
insisted on the necessity of the force had gone too far, because he knew that
the squatters would take up the country whether there were native police or notThey had done it before, and he believed they would do it again. No doubt
a properly organized force would be a preventative to outrages and the spilling
of the blood of the blacks and whites. He must say that up to the present time
the Native Police had been al­most an useless force, through themismanagement of the late Government. He thought the irregularities that
had been committed by the commandant were not greater than the irregularities of
the old Government, and many of the representative members who supported the
reports of the commandant and attacked those who wished to expose the
irregularities of the commandant. Although he substantially agreed withthe report, there were one or two points in which he was inclined He thought the salary proposed for the
commandant was too high, but he did not insist on
this. As honorablemembershad expressed a wish for an adjournment of the
debate he would not oppose it, but he was
prepared to go on with the consideration of the subject.

Mr. COWPER
said a suggestion had been thrown out that the debate should be adjourned. He
thought this was a most important matter, andas hon. Members had not had time to consider it, he would beg to debate
be adjourned until Tuesday next.

Mr. EGAN
supported the motion for adjournment. He considered that hon. members should
have time to take into consideration the evidence which it had been stated would
show the horrid crimes that had been committed. It waseven proved that the blacks had stolen corn and pumpkins,andthey had also been told
that horrid murders had taken place some time ago.

Mr. BUCKLEY
and Mr. ROBERTSON opposed the adjournment.

Mr. MARKS supported the
adjournment, on the ground that the Assessment Act had not yet been passed,
which he conceived conceived naturally affected this question.

The motion for the
adjournment of the debate was then put and carried.

21
Oct 1857 Killings of Aborigines by
Native Troopers

1858

Act 9: Further amendment of the law on Aborigines and evidence

An
Act for the further amendment of the Law of Evidence (22
Vic. No. 7) 25 August 1858: (communication between spouses privileged). (Mc)

Index
to Parliamentary Proceedings

(documents to come)

2nd
Parliament:

14
April 1858 Outrages by Aborigines
Crown Lands Commissioners

17
April 1858 Woodlark Island Massacres

4
May 1858 Murders, Dawson River

26
May, 16 June 1858 Letter, Brisbane, Native Police

14
July 1858 Native Police Expense, Bathurst

14
July 1858] Murder of Aborigines

15
July 1858] Murders by Aborigines

18
Aug 1858] Native Police

28
August 1858] Woodlark Island Massacres

[9
Sept 1858] Sentences on Aborigines

[15
Sept 1858] Aborigines Right to Vote

[1]Act
does not refer to Aborigines, but see “Aborigines right to vote”, 15th
September 1858 and “Electoral rights of aborigines” 15th October
1859.

Select
Committee, murders by Aborigines, Dawson River

Checklist
of Royal Commissions Select Committees of Parliament and Boards of Inquiry, Index
NSW 1855-1960; "49. SC on murders by the aborigines on the Dawson River;
Report, together with the proceedings ... , minutes of evidence, and Appendix
(15.6.1858) (3.8.1858) NSW Pp. (v.2) 843-909

Go
to 1858 New South Wales Legislative Assembly,
Report from the Select Committee on Murders by the Aborigines on the Dawson
River

Murders in Northern
Districts were attributed to inevitable collisions between aborigines and
settlers opening a new tract of country, aggravated by the inefficiency of the
Native Police Force and the mountainous and scrubby nature of the district.

Recommendations in the
Report are concerned with supplementing the Native Police Force with mounted
troopers, and recruitment and reorganization of the Force.

Any attempt to wage a
war of extermination against the aborigines is repudiated by the SC.

“In
the fifties, the nature of Australian land problems changed ... the new
squatters who, since 1847, had obtained a permanent hold on colonial lands ...
had security and were attempting to convert it into a monopoly ... ‘The
territory of a country is in reality the property of its occupiers, which the
nominees of the Crown administer advantageously only as they facilitate its
settlement and culture’ ... ‘the Legislative Council in each State was
allowed to draft the regulations under the 1846 Imperial Act’ ... ‘The old
control was repealed by 18 and 19 Vic., c.56 1855’ ... ‘In 1848, however,
just as the five States were considering Acts for small settlers, South
Australia passed the ‘Real Property Act’ ... ‘At an official registry, the
certificate of title was to be registered with all the apposite transactions
appearing on the face of the certificate ... if no impediment were found, the
Land Titles Commissioners would ... issue certificates ... It was cheap, for
retrospective examination of title was no longer necessary’ ...( it was to)
‘deal with real estate as if it were a chattel ‘...”

Manhood
suffrage

"NSW.
– Establishment of manhood suffrage and vote by ballot ... the population of
Australia reached 1,000,000." [4]

“In
answer to a question from Mr. Flood, the COLONIAL SECRETARY said, it was the
opinion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, that aboriginal natives not qualified to give
evidence in a court of justice, were not entitled to have their names inserted
in any Electoral List, and to vote for members of Parliament. [6]

Parliamentary
Votes and Proceedings, Commandant of Native Police

22
Sept 1859

COMMANDANT
OF NATIVE POLICE

Mr
RICHARDSON moved 'That an address be presented to the Governor-general, praying
that His Excellency will be pleased to lay upon the table of this House any
correspondence that may have taken place between the Colonial Secretary and the
Commandant of the Native Police, relative to certain charges preferred by H.C.
Corfield, esq., against the latter gentleman.' The honorable member believed
this return would show that the charges preferred against the Commandant were
rather of a grave nature, and that the officer had been guilty of gross
negligence of duty. When investigating the matter it should have been the duty
of Government to call upon M. Corfield to substantiate his charges which course
apparently was not pursued. He always sought to keep up the character of that
force for protection of life and property, but at the same time he was anxious
that the head of the force should be as efficient as possible.

Mr.
WILSON seconded the motion.

Mr.
COWPER apprehended that the correspondence referred to took place towards the
end of the year 1857. He believed that the result of the enquiry and
correspondence had ended in the force being better organised and managed, a
great deal of the merit of which was die to Captain Morrisset himself. When he
(Mr. Cowper) first took office he found great complainnts in reference to this
police force, and the subject was one of long correspondence with the resident
at moreton Bay; but for some time past no complaints had been made. The force
was now in an efficient state, and he did think that events of such long
standing as those alluded to in the correspondence would have been allowed to
pass over. However, the Government had no objection to place the correspondence
on the table.

The
motion was put and agreed to."

Parliamentary
Votes and Proceedings, firing upon Blacks at Breakfast Creek

22
Sept 1859

"FIRING
UPON BLACKS AT BREAKFAST CREEK

Mr.
CAMPBELL said he was about to give notice of a question, unless the hon.
gentleman at the head of the Government was prepared to answer it at once. It
was: 'Whether the Government had taken any steps to ascertain who were the
parties that fired on the blacks at Breakfast Creek, in the district of Moreton
Bay, thereby killing a woman and wounding several children?'

Mr.
COWPER said he was prepared to answer the question at once. The Government
received a communication by the last mail in reference to this atrocious act,
together with the information that a 50 pound reward had been offered. By the
return mail he (Mr. C) had confirmed the steps taken by the Government Resident
to discover the offenders."

Mr
MORRIS moved "That there be laid on the table of this House any
correspondence between the Government and its advisers relevant to the rights of
aboriginal natives to exercise the electoral franchise ... whether in the
opinion of the law Officers of the Crown that the aboriginal natives, who were
not qualified to give evidence in Court, were entitled to have their names
inserted in the voting Lists, and vote in the elections of Members of
Parliament. It was then stated to be the opinion of Mr Lutwych that because they
had no fixed abode or habitation they were not able to exercise the franchise.
But there was no doubt a serious difficulty existed, as by the ninth (section)
of the Electoral Act it was clear that every male subject of her majesty of the
full age of twenty-one years and natural born, or who, being a naturalised
subject and have resided in this colony for three years, shall be qualified as
in this section is provided, and not disqualified or incapacitated (as any
cause) hereinafter specified, be entitled to vote in an election for the
electoral district in respect of which they be so qualified. That being the
case, when the Electoral Roll came to be made out the magistrates would have
great difficulty, for if the collector did not give (a vote) to the aborigines,
who in some electorates were the most numerous portion of the inhabitants, he
(Mr Morris) apprehended the magistrates would not be able to (...? obscured)
collectors as they had not performed their duties, as the collectors were
allowed to exercise their discretion by putting in or leaving out any portion of
the (population) they might consider disqualified by absence of permanent
residence; the squatters, who wandered about nearly as much as the aborigines,
might be omitted from franchise, in fact nearly all the electors in the pastoral
districts moved about within their district at least once a year. ..... the
Attorney-General’s opinion did not appear to be a very matured on; and he (Mr
Morris) was of the opinion that the difficulty he had pointed out would make it
necessary to bring in a short Act to disqualify the aborigines if under the
present Act they were not disqualified. Were he to elicit some discussion upon
this matter, he would move the motion standing in his name....

The
ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that there was no objection to produce this correspondence
if any existed. Having made enquiries for it, he could find there was no opinion
of the Crown that was recorded, or any correspondence in reference to it. There
had, he believed, been a verbal statement by the former Attorney-General. He
would ... search for any such documents, and if he found any such thing he would
lay them before the House. ...

Mr.
MORRIS: Will the hon. And learned member give the House the benefit of his
opinion? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have not (?obscured) it. The motion was then
put, and affirmed by the House." [5]

"Steadily
but surely the dark tribes died out"

"Steadily
surely the dark tribes died out, till the census of 1861 showed only 1694 of
them still alive (Victoria)..."[7]

1860

Parliamentary
Votes and Proceedings

(to come)

24
Feb 1860] Richmond

11
April 1860] Casino

19
April 1860] Clarence

2
June 1860] Aboriginal Outrages, New England [16 June 1860]

1861

Camping
with the Blacks

[4
April, 1861

Vagrants
Camping with Aborigines )

April
11 1861, (Sydney Morning Herald)

"Mr.
BUCHANAN asked the Colonial Secretary 'If he would give him any idea when
the depositions in the case of the two men imprisoned for one year for camping
with aborigines would be laid upon the table of this House?'

Mr.
COWPER laid the papers on the table, and they were ordered to be printed."

Crown
Lands Alienation Billand
provision for aborigines

Their massacre and scattering by Native
Police Troopers enables a clear passage for the 1862 Robertson
Crown Lands Act, with its land grab provision, free selection before
survey.

April 17th 1861

Mr.
JOHNSON said that “..... the object of legislation was to allow the resources
of a country to develop themselves naturally which they would do unless they
were thwarted by legislation ... country like this (had been) unfettered
by any species of legislation ... His hon. Friend (Mr. Deas Thomson) had told
the House of the immense tracts of country which at this moment were not
put to any use whatsoever. In the settled districts of this country there were
12,700,000 acres of land unalienated from the Crown; in the intermediate
districts there were 13,000,000 acres; and in the unsettled districts there were
123,000,000 acres, making a total of 149,000,000 acres which, under the present
regulations were open to any person who chose to comply with those regulations
... We were in this immense territory, with all these 190,000,000 millions of
acres of land used for nothing whatever .... occupied by a population not
exceeding 30,000 persons ....
the regulations with regard to free selection prohibited (them) from taking land
in the vicinity of townships ... He trusted that the provisions of the Act would
... render the tenure of those holding run secure ...

The
SECRETARY FOR LANDS said .... that this principle of free selection before
survey, of occupancy, of settlement, and of purchase was provided for in the
land law ... Those who objected to the small settlers picking out the eyes of
the country, had no objection to the squatters doing the same thing. The
squatters enjoyed the right of free selection before survey, and years after the
settlements were made the surveyor went to measure the land ... the Government
had found out at last, that whilst they had the richest pastoral and
agricultural country in the world – a country that was also richer in gold
than any other on the face of the globe – they had yet a population in it many
of whom were actually on the brink of starvation from being cooped up in the
city ....
in his opinion, it had been the operation of the present land laws
that had been the primary cause of this destitution ...
The hon. Member, Mr
Holden, next complained that the bill contained no provision for the native
blacks. Now, what he would ask, had the question of the alienation and
occupation of Crown Lands, to do with the native blacks? He was quite willing to
do as much as he could for the native blacks, but what was to be done for them
had nothing to do with the settlement of the land question. He would,
however, tell the hon. Member that if provision were to be made for these poor
people, it must be made in kind; it was not to be done by setting land aside for
them for them that they will never occupy. Hon. Members knew full well that this
plan had already been tried, and that even if the land were there for them, they
had no means of making it available, and no capacity for making proper use of
it. If they were to be assisted, it must be done by making a proper provision
for them ... Let them only look at the result would be were he to follow all the
suggestions offered. Some hon. Members were under the impression required to
have provision made for the blacks ... others for immigration and others for the
clergy. If all these were provided for in the bill he need hardly tell them what
its fate would be; and if he desired to see its rejection he need only adopt all
these suggestions that had been

Mr.
DANGAR moved for returns relative to the annual distribution of blankets to the
aborigines, who, the honorable member asserted, had been unfairly dealt with in
many cases, the blankets having been often distributed too late in the season,
and sometimes seen on the beds of magistrates and constables.

Mr.
MARKHAM called on the honorable member to name the parties he accused.

Mr.
DANGAR did not allude to any person in New England. He had not been an
eye-witness - he had merely been informed of the circumstances in question.

Mr.
HARPUR had heard from competent authority, that the issue of blankets to the
blacks was one of the causes of their declining numbers.

Mr.
WEEKES had no other objection to the return than the trouble and expense it
would involve. The number of blankets issued this year was double that in former
years.

Mr.
DANGAR having replied, the motion was passed without division."

Significance
This document was the first of two new laws which transformed land ownership in New South Wales, and which were followed by similar laws in other colonies. This Act provided for the alienation of land and the complementary Act provided for the occupation of land.

In 1861, the powerful Premier of New South Wales, John Robertson, was determined to break the long-established monopoly of the squatter-pastoralists in land-holding in the colony. He forced two Acts through the Parliament, opening up free selection of Crown land by permitting any person to select up to 320 acres, on the condition of paying a deposit of one-quarter of the purchase price after survey, and of living on the land for three years.

Robertson intended to give poorer purchasers access to land and to increase farming and agricultural development in New South Wales. Great conflicts between the squatters and the selectors ensued, and corruption and scheming in acquiring land became rife.

Although the success of their goals was questionable, these Acts had a powerful impact in the ownership and use of vast regions of the Colony (and, in the eyes of some, thereby also encouraging bushranging). In enabling close settlement of pastoral lands still available for use by Aboriginal people, the Acts further limited the lands and economy of the first occupants. They also permanently weakened the political power of the pastoralist class in Australia.
[http:www.foundingdocs.gov]

“Mr.
S. D. GORDON presented a petition from the moderator and clerk of the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales, praying that the law
might be so amended as to prevent any sale or supply of intoxication liquors to
the aborigines.

“Mr.
PHELPS moved as a ‘formal’ motion,-‘That this House will, on Tuesday next,
resolve itself into a committee of the whole, for the consideration of the
propriety of introducing a bill to prohibit the supply of intoxicating liquors
to the aboriginal natives of New South Wales in any quantity that shall produce
intoxication.’

Mr.
JOSEPHSON having seconded the motion, it was put and agreed to.” [13]

Mr.
HAY said that ... He believed the punishment of death ought only to be carried
out when criminals had shown themselves to be particularly dangerous ... or in
cases when it became necessary to set a great example. Then it would be a
cruelty to the great mass of people to allow the guilty to escape ... He
believed that capital punishment had a deterring effect – that it had
prevented crime from resulting in enormous slaughter. He recollected when he had
arrived in the country many years ago, how little regard was paid to value of
the lives of the aborigines, but a terrible example was made – a terrible
example. Many blamed the Governor, Sir George Gipps – many blamed that those
men should have been placed a second time on their trial, and seven men
executed; but it was a great example, one needed, and since that time the
aborigines have been safe. Since that time there had been another crime, and in
a neighbouring colony too, and if such examples were made as the Government of
that day had set, we should hear of them no more ...” [15]

“On
the motion of Mr. PHELPS, the House went into Committee of the whole to consider
the propriety of introducing a bill to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors
to the aboriginal natives of New South Wales in any quantity that shall produce
intoxication.

Mr.
PHELPS moved a resolution affirming the desirability of introducing the bill ...
the second reading of the bill was made an Order of the Day for Friday next.” [16]

Mr.
PHELPS, in moving the second reading of this bill, said he thought its object
was one that would commend itself to all who knowing anything of the native
blacks had observed the great change that had come over them since the last
Amendment of the Publicans’ Licensing Act, which took place about seven years
ago. The present bill was merely a copy of portion of an Act existing before
that time, the provisions of which were omitted from the Publicans’ Licensing
Act ... he had thought it necessary to re-enact only that portion of the
previously exiting law as it had worked well. He scarcely need allude to the
evils sought to be remedied, but he might first say that a fine tribe of blacks
in the extreme south-western country, whose services were previously valuable in
pastoral and grazing occupations, had become almost useless since the change.
They would get spirits at the public-houses, carry them into the camps, and
there getting furiously drunk, and lapsing into their native savagery, break
into murderous riot, killing their gins and throwing each other on the fire. He
had long thought of introducing this measure, ... he ... asked for the
assent of the House to the bill before it ...

Dr.
LANG believed the necessity for this bill had arisen from the omission in the
Publicans’ Licensing Act of a clause forbidding the supply of intoxicating
liquors to the black aborigines. The change that since that since this
prohibition had been removed had in the far west come over these people was very
evident and exceedingly deplorable. Previously those on the Darling and other
portions of the far west were accustomed to labour tending flocks and doing
useful work about the stations in that part of the country. But all this had
been discontinued since the omission in the present Act, admitting the
supply of intoxicating liquors to the aborigines. The number of outrages they
committed had increased, and it was therefore necessary in a high degree in that
part of the country that such a measure as this should be passed. Fortunately in
the eastern portion of the colony there was little need for such legislation. He
thought it would be necessary to alter some of the terms of the bill so as to
prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to the blacks, instead of leaving it
open to a legal cavil what amounts may be deemed intoxicating.

Mr.
J. STEWART said that the bill would be quite inoperative; no one would enforce
its provisions. It would not do any good and possibly might do some harm. Some
aboriginal might be found in a state of intoxication, and if there was a
public-house in the neighbourhood some informer might swear that he got the
liquor there, or from some adjacent farmer. But if it was thought that the bill
was necessary for the aborigines it would require alteration so as to apply not
only to aboriginal blacks, but also to natives in general. The white men of this
colony had committed as many atrocious outrages as the blacks in proportion to
their numbers, and theirs were less excusable. The assertion in the preamble –
‘Whereas, the supplying of intoxicating liquors to the aboriginal natives in
New South Wales is productive of serious mischief’, would be quite as true
without the word ‘aboriginal’ as with it. Then, again, how were you to know
what amount was intoxicating? A person might give a black a nobbler, not knowing
he had two or three before, and it would be hard lines if he were punished for
this. An aboriginal had as much necessity for a little cordial as a white man,
and, in some circumstances, it was necessary to enable them to perform their
duty. There was no good to done by over legislation. He was disposed to vote
against this bill, because he regarded it as useless – a measure which would
only encumber the Statute-book to no purpose.

Mr.
WILSON said that he would vote for the second reading of the bill ... He thought
that the rapid disappearance of the blacks from the populous parts of the colony
was owing to the effect of rum; and he considered that as the whites had
introduced this firewater it was our bounden duty to protect these unfortunate
creatures, who were not sufficiently educated to comprehend the dreadful evils
which would fall upon them and their tribe by drinking intoxicating liquors. He
knew that the white natives of the colony were, as a body, very temperate, and
the natives of the second generation were a wonderfully sober people. The
climate, he thought, was favourable to temperance, and he had no doubt that the
people of New South Wales would become remarkable for their temperate habits ...

Mr.
HART animadverted ton an observation made by the hon. Member for Illawarra The
evils resulting from the sale of these liquors were of very great magnitude, and
he thought that we ought to do all that lay in our power to ameliorate the
present condition of the aborigines in this respect ...

Mr.
LUCAS took exception to the statement that the bill was in any way needed for
the protection of the natives of the colony, other than aboriginals.

Mr.
FORSTER did not think that the natives of the colony required such elaborate
vindication of their character as the hon. member who had just sat down had
entered upon; for he thought that the remarks of the hon. member for Wollongong
were only intended as a joke. (Hear, hear.)The hon. member
evidently only intended a joke, and the matter was scarcely worth mentioning in
a serious way ... he agreed with (the hon. member for Illawarra) in thinking
that there would be great difficulty in accomplishing the object intended. We
were, however, bound to try and accomplish it ... was customary for employers of
labour to give spirits to their servants; and it was not likely that employers
would make a difference between white and aboriginal labourers. The decay of
inferior races before superior was one of those physiological facts which had
never been accounted for, and it seemed to be the inevitable result whenever
they came into contact. He believed that that effect would take place if thee
were no spirituous liquors; but as there were some grounds for believing that
this decay was more rapid by these liquors being supplied to them, he thought it
was his duty to support he second reading of the bill.

Mr.
TIGHE, referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Illawarra, said the
manner of the hon. Member clearly indicated that he was speaking in jest, and
although it may have been indiscreet in the hon. Member to jest in the way he
did, no one who had heard him could suppose for a moment that he was speaking in
earnest. With regard to the bill before the House, he thought it was quite right
that the Legislature should take care of the aborigines, as they were mere
children and unable to take care of themselves. He did not think it would be
advisable to strike out the words which the hon. Minister for Lands proposed to
admit, as, in that case, anyone giving a glass of colonial wine to an aboriginal
would be liable to a penalty of 10 pounds. There were many aboriginal blacks who
were domesticated and living on stations, and he thought it would not be right
to debar anyone from giving to one of these domesticated blacks a glass of wine
or porter in case of sickness. It would be sufficient, he thought, to debar
anyone from giving to an aboriginal sufficient liquor to make him intoxicated,
or to give it to him while he was intoxicated ... It was the opinion of
some people that a glass of wine or spirits was necessary to people when they
were undergoing severe privations, and if necessary for a white man, why should
a black man be debarred from it? Under this bill as proposed to be amended, a
person on a station would be debarred from giving a black woman, after
childbirth, when she might require nourishment, a bottle of porter or ale ...

The
motion was put and agreed to, and the bill read a second time.

Upon
the motion of Mr. PHELPS, the House went into committee to consider the bill in
detail.

Clause1.
‘If any person shall sell, supply, or give any liquor, fermented or
spirituous, or any mixed liquor partly fermented or partly spirituous, in any
quantity which shall produce intoxication to any aboriginal native of New South
Wales, he shall, for every offence, forfeit and pay .... a penalty not exceeding
10 pounds.’

Mr.
STEWART stated that that his remarks upon this bill, which were only given in
jest, had been misrepresented. He had no feeling against the bill, nor did he
intend to oppose it.

Mr.
WILSON proposed to omit the words “in any quantity which will produce
intoxication’ with a view to the insertion of the words ‘except for
medicinal purposes.’

Mr
FORSTER contended that spirits were required by some persons in certain
circumstances, not only for curative purposes but for strengthening purposes,
and he did not see why a blackfellow should be debarred from taking spirits when
their use would be beneficial. In cases of snake bite, for instance, spirits
were used as one of the most powerful remedies, and under this bill persons
would be debarred from administering spirits to a blackfellow in such a case.
(No, no.)

Mr.
WILSON said a powerful argument against the remarks of the hon. Member was, that
intoxicating drink was an evil that the white man had introduced. There would be
some force in the hon. Member’s argument if blackfellows had been accustomed
to drink spirits before the white men came here, but they had not. Black doctors
never gave spirits, and a blackfellow, when ill, rarely applied to a white man
for assistance. Indeed they had a superstition that no assistance would be
available to them; hence, when ill, the course they usually took was to lie down
and die. ...

It
was then proposed to insert the words ‘except for medicinal purposes.’

Mr.
HART was of the opinion that the proposition would lead to an evasion of the Act
... the proposed amendment was put and negatived ... On the motion of Mr. HART
the following words were added to the end of the clause: ‘provided that
nothing herein contained shall prevent the sale of any of the said liquors to
any aboriginal for medicinal purposes only ... The bill was reported with
amendments, and the report was adopted. The third reading was made an order of
the day for Tuesday next.” [17]

Legislative
Council votes and proceedings: Supply of Liquor to aborigines

November
27th

1867

“SUPPLY
OF LIQUOR TO ABORIGINES

The
PRESIDENT reported a message from the Assembly, covering a bill to prohibit the
supply of intoxication drink to aborigines.

Mr.
LORD moved that the bill be read a first time.

The
bill was read, and the second reading made the Order of the Day for Wednesday
next.” [18]

Legislative
Council votes and proceedings: supply of intoxicating drink to aborigines

November
28th

1867

“In
the Legislative Council, yesterday ... The Bill to prohibit the supply of
intoxicating drink to aborigines was brought up from the Assembly, and read the
first time on the motion of Mr. LORD.” [19]

Legislative
Council votes and proceedings: Liquor to aborigines

December
5th

1867

LIQUOR
TO ABORIGINES

Mr.
LORD moved the House into committee for the consideration of the Supply of
Intoxicating Liquors to Aborigines Bill.

The
House went into committee, and the bill was agreed to.

The
bill was reported without amendment, the report was adopted, and the third
reading fixed for the next sitting day.” [20]

Legislative
Council votes and proceedings: Intoxicating drinks to aborigines

December
6th

1867

“INTOXICATING
DRINKS TO ABORIGINES

Mr.
LORD moved that the bill to prohibit the supply of intoxicating drinks to
aborigines be read a second time. He thought it a most desirable measure, and it
had been passed unanimously in the other House.

Mr.
DOCKER did not desire to oppose the bill, but expressed some apprehension that
it would not be found effective.

The
question was put and carried.

The
bill was read a second time, and ordered for committal for tomorrow.” [21]

Legislative
Council votes and proceedings: Intoxicating Liquors Bill

December
12th

1867

“INTOXICATING
LIQUORS BILL

On
the motion of Mr. LORD, seconded by Sir WILLIAM MANNING, the Supply of
Intoxicating Liquors to Aborigines Bill was read a third time, passed, and
ordered to be returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.” [22]

"It
was not, in fact, until 1876 that the Aborigines of New South Wales attained the
right to give unsworn evidence in courts of law." ( Report of Legislative
Council proceedings, Sydney Morning Herald 29 June 1849, in
Woolmington, Jean, op cit (Page 144-145).